Twin Falls School District adopted a new cell phone policy at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year, causing students and teachers to be divided.
The new policy states that high school students are not to have their phones in class, hallways, or advisory; they may only have phones before school, during lunch, and after school hours.
Despite the district determining this policy beneficial for the student population, there have been small protests, with students calling the policy “teachers having a power high.”
Students have even said this policy is not designed to help the student population but to “take away rights from students.”
Policy 3735, or “Personal Electronic Communication Devices,” was drafted earlier this year by a committee of teachers and parents. Bluntly, the policy was made to keep students off their phones, hoping it would help improve mental health and academic achievements.
Eva Craner, TFSD public relations director, stated, “There is a growing body of research exploring the effects of cell phones and the constant connection to communication devices and social media that is so prevalent today. This research illustrates the impact of cell phones and social media on student academic achievement and overall well-being [mental health, peer connections, healthy relationships]. The constant connection to these devices is detrimental in all scientific studies on the topic I’ve encountered.”
Along with cell phones, electronic devices such as wireless headphones or earphones, iPads, personal laptops, tablet computers, and wearables (such as watches) are not allowed during the school day. However, the use of smartwatches and personal Chromebooks is not being strictly enforced.
It is essential to mention that according to the policy, these electronic devices are not to be used from the first bell of the day till the end of the school day bell. This policy also applies to assemblies, field trips, and free periods. Exceptions are made for electronic devices relating to disabilities or other health concerns.
That being said, it is no understatement to say that teachers “love” this policy, with 95.1% of CRHS teachers responding to a Riverhawk Review poll saying they agree the new policy benefits teachers and students.
Mr. Cameron Hoge, the construction teacher at CRHS, commented, “I think it has been a great thing; [students’] level of engagement has been very high, and it is much easier to have class discussions when I’m not competing for attention.”
Other teachers, such as Mr. Gordon Sorensen, the freshman transition teacher, simply put, “It’s been great not having to police cell phones all day!”
Teachers also agree that students are now “talking with each other more” and have seen their students “be more productive in class.”
Some CRHS teachers still have some concerns. One concern is that watches are still allowed in class, and students may use their computers and personal laptops as a form to distract themselves. Another concern is that some teachers feel that phones should be permitted during passing periods.
Mr. Mick Carter, an English, speech and debate, and STUCO teacher at CRHS commented, “The passing period doesn’t quite make sense to me; I feel they should be able to check their phones as they walk to and from classes. This helps them coordinate lunch and after-school plans with peers and parents.”
Students generally feel the same way regarding phones in the halls.
The CRHS student population has its perspective on this policy. Polling 169 students ranging from freshmen through seniors, only 10.5% feel that the policy benefits students with another 14.79% saying it somewhat benefits students; while on the other side, 18.8% say they somewhat disagree it benefits students and 34.1% say it does not benefit students; 21.8% feel neutral about the policy.
The 10% of students who support the policy being beneficial say they understand the policy is made to help students, with senior Dianna Juarez stating, “Not being able to use our phones during class is beneficial because we’re able to focus, but we should be able to use [phones] during passing period.”
Others who are more neutral or disagree that the policy is beneficial can agree it was supposed to be helpful; however, as Rhys Hernandez another senior at CRHS put it, “In most classes, it’s supposed to be beneficial, but it doesn’t. I still feel certain things, like listening to music, should be allowed.”
Only 22.5% of students feel that the new policy was intended to help students. 21.3% of students polled believe the policy was not even intended to help the student population.
When asked if there should be parts of the policy changed, however, 67.46% said that certain parts of the policy must be changed. Only 5.92% of students polled believe there are no parts of the policy that need to be reconsidered.
Fabian Vazquez, a junior, explained, “CRHS needs to relook at the wireless headphone rule. It’s what helps me stay focused and eyes on what I’m doing with no distraction.”
CRHS sophomore Claire Freckleton said, “I believe that we should be allowed to have our phones in the hallway. If I need to contact my family for a small reason or for something embarrassing, I’d rather not tell the teacher and go to the office for something like that.”
With these comments made and the student population of CRHS displeased with the policy, does that mean there will be a change next year?
The answer: Not likely. Though the cons of the policy have been made clear by students, the policy does show growth in areas such as students socializing more with one another, and distractions in classes have been lowered since the policy was implemented.
